Nothing against wayside cross - it is surely nice, together like Marterl (their bells were very often used for ringing of alarm), but I prefer religious neutrality - so, there would be needed to add also shrines for islam and judaism (at least).

Beehives would be good as fields for any agricultural farm. Mysterious footprint looks very strange.

So I decided to vote for megalithic grave, even if I think that else (but I am not sure what) name could be better.

Nothing against wayside cross - it is surely nice, together like Marterl (their bells were very often used for ringing of alarm), but I prefer religious neutrality - so, there would be needed to add also shrines for islam and judaism (at least).

A bit off topic, but I think culture is too dependant on religion to abandon it - it would mean no churches, no graveyards, ...On the other hand, depicting all religions equally seems wrong. Wayside Cross and Marterl both only fit the "Austrian" climate zone only, not northern Germany, so naturally that's where they appear. There is no climate zone for muslems or jews, though. I can see mosques and synagoges in large cities, I can see jewish memorials (less likely for islam) in citys, but a "wayside islamic shrine" just doesn't fit.(on another note... are there black people in any set? I think in pak192.comic they all have the same skin color oô)

A bit off topic, but I think culture is too dependant on religion to abandon it - it would mean no churches, no graveyards, ...

Yes, culture is very dependant on religion.

All three monotheistic religions have own churches (called churches, synagogues, mosques). I don't know situation with graveyards in islam (but I think that they have graveyards too), but jews and christians have graveyards. So no problem.

Problem may be in wayside crosses and marterls that probably have not analogues in islam and judaism. Religion buildings are mostly case of city buildings, not countryside buildings.

Quote

On the other hand, depicting all religions equally seems wrong.

You are right, of course, partly. But I don't want to religions would be represented equally, because it is clearly impossible, but on other hand, why not to avoid being of some structures present in Simutrans. I think that churches of all shapes could be sufficient, mostly if city buildings have greater chance to be built - than countryside buildings.

And to issue of equality of presence of buildings of other religions in paksets: Most paksets are mostly based on Europe, so following words are related to Europe too: Jews have lived in Europe for very long time. And in great numbers. But it is not good to think that Muslims came to Europe in few last years.

1. Southern part of Spain was under reign of Muslims before year 1492 (they left Span after falling of Cordoba, few months before Columbus started his voyage). 2. Order of Teutonic knights was defeated (in battle by Tannenberg/Grunwald) in 1410 by king of Poland with help of Tatars (muslims) - and Tatars got piece of land of Poland where they could live (and where they probably still live). 3. Bogdan Chmielnickij fought against Poland with help of Crimean Tatars, in 1649. 4. And of course, I should not forget on both Wien sieges by Tatars, in 1529 and 1683.

Other religions (buddhism and so) are relatively new in Europe.

Quote

Wayside Cross and Marterl both only fit the "Austrian" climate zone only, not northern Germany, so naturally that's where they appear.

Wayside crosses and mostly marterls are present also in Czech republic. But hard to say to what climate zone place my country.

Quote

There is no climate zone for muslems or jews, though.

See previous point - to know more. Because in this you are wrong.

Quote

(on another note... are there black people in any set? I think in pak192.comic they all have the same skin color oô)

Again, you are wrong - in skin colour. Crimean Tatars are (more or less) white. And Jews (and Muslims from Middle-East) are mostly white too.

I hope that this my explaining is sufficient for understanding of problem of religion structures and related issues.

~I'll cut this off and, if my newly gained mod powers in this narrow region of the forum allow it, move to somewhere it fits better. I hope... if it's still here in a couple minutes, I probably failed

Vaclav, please be aware my points were about pak192.comic. I think the public release has no climates at all, and the current idea is to do something Germany/Austria centric, because of the material existing so far. I think that clears up a lot of the points earlier made, but I'll take the time to answer all of them.

All three monotheistic religions have own churches (called churches, synagogues, mosques). I don't know situation with graveyards in islam (but I think that they have graveyards too), but jews and christians have graveyards. So no problem.

It would be a problem to try and depict a culture without depicting it's inherent religion. Beside wayside crosses, Marterl, the church in every town, the christian graveyard in every other town, Saint Florian on almost every firefighter station, pike crosses, via crucis on a lot of hiking routes (which could all be depicted in Simutrans) you also get all the customs, like the first of may, harvest festival, christmas, eastern,... which are not in Simutrans, but still, they are part of what defines the region. Not allowing any of them is something I wouldn't do.

Yes, there are synagoges and mosques as well, but they obviously look different and, to a degree, out of place. While there are Synagoges and Mosques in Austria and Germany, you'd have a spawning rate thats less then a hundreth of churches. Basically, most player wouldn't ever see it, which means the situation wouldn't be much different then now. The same would be true with an arabien climate zone. I wouldn't plant any churches there at all. Maybe an orthodox one. But mostly, they would be mosques (both sunni and shia, I guess).

Problem may be in wayside crosses and marterls that probably have not analogues in islam and judaism. Religion buildings are mostly case of city buildings, not countryside buildings.

I have no idea if there are any similar structures anywhere else, but at least not in the regions those crosses get placed. So, even if you could find islam wayside shrines in, say, Turkey, it wouldn't mean anything to the wayside crosses in Austria, right?

[...] why not to avoid being of some structures present in Simutrans. I think that churches of all shapes could be sufficient, mostly if city buildings have greater chance to be built - than countryside buildings

But even if you dispose of the cross and Marterl, you'd still have the churches and graveyards, but no synagoge or mosque (in that region, anyway). So what's the point? If someone wants to be offended because his religion is not represented, he'd be either way. I don't think a wayside cross changes that. If someone want's to be offended by an arabian climate zone depicting crescents, (s)he'd be, too - but I still wouldn't remove them.

And to issue of equality of presence of buildings of other religions in paksets: Most paksets are mostly based on Europe, so following words are related to Europe too: Jews have lived in Europe for very long time. And in great numbers. But it is not good to think that Muslims came to Europe in few last years.

Well, as I said, this is not about most paksets, but about this pakset. Yes, jews lived in Europe for a long time, but never in numbers great enough to define the culture. Sure, there were the Khazar, although one could argue that's not europe. So there impact on culture, at least with religious signs, is insignificant. As for the islam, whose regions are not part of the pak. They could be, if someone was to do it, but right now they are not. Not sure how many religious signs survived anyway.

See previous point - to know more. Because in this you are wrong.Again, you are wrong - in skin colour. Crimean Tatars are (more or less) white. And Jews (and Muslims from Middle-East) are mostly white too.

I don't think I was wrong just because you assumed spain and poland were included in the pak. Currently, they are not. And I don't think I ever said that those of other religions have different skin color, that was a question asked out of curiosity. I just wanted to know if anyone ever thought about that issue, which is in my mind similar to what you brought up. ("why christian symbols and not [other religions]" is, in my mind, similar to "why white and not [other skin color]", with the difference that we should include ethic minorities, even if only at a low rate.

Being an atheist myself, and having respect to all religions, I think our paks should completely try to avoid any religious sign, anywere. What I'd understand is some religious buildings being represented, like big mosques, or cathedrals, but not much more, because after all they are historic buildings. But I'd keep it just to old, historic buildings.

Why? Because I think it's better to avoid images that can make any of our players unconfortable.

Religious players can allways make their own religion-themed pak, imo. Or make all religiuon themed items as an addon, an addon pak. But mainstream paks should remain neutral to all religion/races.

there would be needed to add also shrines for islam and judaism (at least).

... this is not neutral enough.

In my opinion, religious neutrality is something that applies to situations that involve everyone and belief does not matter, such as a public/state service that should serve everybody (I'm being very simplistic, I can't be long). But when it comes down to individual expression, like art, people are entitled to do whatever they want as long as it does not violate somebody else (still, I'm being very simplistic).

Therefore, no art needs to cover all religions or any. It's an expression of the artist. And the viewer (or the appraiser) is entitled to have whatever opinion about the art. Fair deal.

If a member of the community decides to make a pakset of a country, it's very likely there will be some kind of "pattern" to depict that country. Since religious monuments are a reality in our cities and other manmade landscapes, it's expectable that certain religions will be covered, others will not.

I can fully understand the idea of not wanting to offend people, but the objects represented here are in the real world and are therefore objects that could and should be reallistically shown in Simutrans if you are aiming for a realistic pakset representative of some part of the world.

If you deliberately remove such objects, it isn't actually a statement of neutrality ("I'm not going to favour one religion over another") but a statement in favour of atheism ("I'd rather there was no religion ") - so you can't have it neutral. Most people in the Western world don't take offence if there is a church/mosque/synagogue/temple in their town so why should it be any different in Simutrans?

In any case, if people do have particularly strong views one way or another, it's very easy with makeobj in simutrans to delete the pak files you don't want in your game world, or copy others in from other pak sets. People do it all the time. Simutrans is very modable - part of it's appeal - so having some kind of "official" policy from the community is a little overbearing I think. Let the player decide.

You could not join a network game without those. So it is not completely free.

Personally, I would not like these. They represent for me dark Catholicism, when masses were all Latin to keep the peasants in the dark. Hence the conclusion of the liked thread in the archive: No crosses on churches. This would of course imply no freestanding crosses ...

BUT: I think this is not entirely consequent in pak128. There are churches without crosses (and the mosque) without crescendent moon, but then the two orthodox christian churches have them, the gothic and the ugly modern munich one have one (and some other, but then they are tiny), and rmax mosque has one too.

When they are included, better make them rare. Otherwise they would be very prominent, and may offend also western atheist (like me )

Can we remove plantations and fisheries as well? And the fossil fuel based industry chains. All are serious threats to the environment and I'm an environmentalist. And the open pit iron mine in pak64 is just an ugly wound in the landscape. The supermarket is also a symbol of rampant consumerism and capitalism.

This is really delicate topic. Personally I am not offended by religious buildings of any religion. Maybe because I do not beleive in any god. Neither nuclear nor military stuff offends me. However I would try to avoid such stuff in generic paksets. On the other hand country specific paks: german, british, japanese, czechoslovak, etc should be free to include them. Czechoslovakia has a lot of wayside crosses, so I would welcome them in pak.cs. We have also some uranium mines and nuclear power plants, so why not having them in game? I dont know if comic paksets aim to be generic or country specific.

One partial solution would be to limit religious symbols by climate, but it might do more harm in the end. (e.g. Why there are no mosques in tundra, or worse, why they are only in desert?!)

I'm not offended by the presence or the lack of religious buildings. I myself have changed my mind quite a lot in that respect (religion). I'm much more offended by intolerance, whether it comes from religious people or atheists.

Behind the pak concept, I think, it is the idea of freedom of choice. Freedom for the artists to draw and the gamers to choose. Therefore, I think that the decision about what to include or not to include in a pakset corresponds solely to the authors of those paksets. Moreover, what can we do to prevent an outsider from generating whatever pak he likes and advertise it?

Question apart is if a pak is to be supported/advertised by our community. One clear first limit is the law. And, secondly, consensus (or, if no other chance, majorities). Although common sense dictates that some themes are better kept apart: politics, for instance.

I also don't like that prevalent modern idea that everything has to be highly politically correct: the same amount of men, women, white, black, tall, short, hairy, bold, fat, thin, etc. It just bores me. (Or use language à la 1984 to manipulate opinions... for instance, "s/he" and all that ugly stuff)

And a final reflexion, a "disclaimer" note in the pakset pages about their content would perhaps be a good idea, since sensibilities vary greatly.

I just stumbled across this thread and I was amazed.I congratulate the members of this community on the objective discussion on this topic! Usually such discussions degenerate into rants about either religious or non-religious people. This is in my opinion a good example for a healthy discussion on the topic.

I myself think that if the aim is realism such wayside crosses should be included in pak.192.comic as Austria and Bavaria are full of them. However I can also see that neutrality is important too.

Regarding intolerance: As long as nuclear/military is banned from the official paks, then we already are picking and choosing content¹. And if we are picking and choosing content, then discussing WHAT to pick and choose is hardly intolerance. I personally thing the no-nuclear and no-military policies are silly, but I respect - honestly respect - the opinions of those who feel that they should not be put into Simutrans.

Meanwhile, EVERY time this topic has come up, someone has felt the need to essentially accuse those that don't like religious buildings/symbols as intolerant.

I'm not picking on any particular comment - even though one in particular does strongly match the terminology I have used, this is NOT a reply to that comment, but to larger sentiments expressed.

Where do I go with this, though?

1. If nuclear is allowed in official paks, then my argument against religious things is reduced, isn't it? I'm fine with that.

2. If, however, a policy against nuclear/military continues, then I think a discussion about religious symbols/buildings is, at the very least, and appropriate discussion to have.

There are particular points from various messages that I would very much like to address (i.e. argue against), but I won't. But to anyone who talks about intolerance: please be careful that you are yourself free from intolerance. And I include myself in that. I try to keep an open mind. But I have also been branded as intolerant (NOT here, but elsewhere) because I stand up to the intolerance of those who try and force things on me! (I'd rather not get into specific examples; especially since everyone can find examples of idiots on all sides with all opinions)

edit: After thought, although I don't want to make a full argument, I would like to at least suggest that the flip side of "political correctness" (supposedly being evil) is the very concept of tolerance. People have hijacked efforts to increase tolerance and branded them as "political correctness". What an amazing propaganda job that is! Though, as with everything else, not everything is perfect, and perhaps some efforts at tolerance are overboard or otherwise undesirable. _________¹ I don't count such things as adult-oriented businesses or hate-speech groups represented by buildings or whatever, because such things are already outside the scope of a kid-friendly project

And great britain (to my knowledge, never been in North Ireland) as well as the majority of germany (about 70% population wise) is devoid of wayside crosses. If included, they really need to scare, of many people will not see a familar landscape object. Maybe confining them to some alpine zones (rocky) is a way out. Megalith on the other hand are mostly expected in lower landscapes.

By the way, the bee hive in winter should have sleeping bees. I mean that is way nature made them produce honey in the first place ...

Well, Ters has shown that it is indeed a coal plant as it has chimneys, but still we offer the nuclear chain in the repository. Just to clear that I'm an (light) environmentalist and see no problems on nuclear chains. But I would prefer cleaner options.

edit: After thought, although I don't want to make a full argument, I would like to at least suggest that the flip side of "political correctness" (supposedly being evil) is the very concept of tolerance. People have hijacked efforts to increase tolerance and branded them as "political correctness". What an amazing propaganda job that is! Though, as with everything else, not everything is perfect, and perhaps some efforts at tolerance are overboard or otherwise undesirable.

It's uncountable the times I've seen discussions of things that deserved no discussion or were stupid. The same propaganda applies to environmentalism.

And great britain (to my knowledge, never been in North Ireland) as well as the majority of germany (about 70% population wise) is devoid of wayside crosses. If included, they really need to scare, of many people will not see a familar landscape object. Maybe confining them to some alpine zones (rocky) is a way out.

Here where I live in Brazil the climate is somewhere between temperate-tropical and I do see some wayside crosses as this lands were colonized by Germans and Italians and basically all countries who formed the Holy Roman Empire. But they are not every corner, you must look with care if you want to find them.

Oh, I made a mistake when I opened discussion that turned against me, a little.

I supposed that pak192.comic and pak96.comic are from small group of mainpaksets and thus they should be neutral in relation to religions.

It is hard to say if islam or christianism would be offended more by placing of such buildings like Hagia Sofia, ex-mosque in Spanish city Granada, or all three monotheistic religions if Jerusalem Rock dome would be placed - because all of these buildings changed owner.

But really, it is a little better and fair (even if not easier) to bring religious neutrality by diversity of religious buildings and constructions - than absence of them - aside of I think that proposed marterl and wayside cross are not the best objects for this matter.

And great britain (to my knowledge, never been in North Ireland) as well as the majority of germany (about 70% population wise) is devoid of wayside crosses. If included, they really need to scare, of many people will not see a familar landscape object. Maybe confining them to some alpine zones (rocky) is a way out. Megalith on the other hand are mostly expected in lower landscapes.

No, it's not a german pak per se, that's just all it contains at the moment. As it was stated before, the wayside crosses won't be everywhere, just in Austria. Even if there was a british zone, it wouldn't have wayside crosses. Just celtic crosses

However, I don't think renaming the pakset would do any good. It's not like we don't want to have any international contributers: We just don't have them. But if I was a new pixler looking for a pak to work on, I'd not join a project about other nations, because I would not know what to contribute. Yes, it is German centric at the moment, but that's because we only worked on that so far. Anyone is invited to join us and help us depicting his nation as well, even if we'd have to pester the developers at some point to make additional modular climates possible.And obviously, even if it was named pak192.alpine, the british addon would still be out there, so what's the difference?

Can't we simply play the architecture card? For example, I am not a muslim but I think mosques are beautiful buildings. Simutrans is about transporting people from various locations, not about the beliefs of each individual Simupolitain. Can't we just accept these items as nice graphical items?

Oh, I made a mistake when I opened discussion that turned against me, a little. [...]It is hard to say if islam or christianism would be offended more by placing of such buildings like Hagia Sofia, ex-mosque in Spanish city Granada,[...]

Much on the contrary, Václav. It's nice to talk about everything. By the way, and not trying to be rude, but the ex-mosque that now is a Catholic cathedral is the Mosque of Córdoba, not Granada...

[...]And if we are picking and choosing content, then discussing WHAT to pick and choose is hardly intolerance.[...]Meanwhile, EVERY time this topic has come up, someone has felt the need to essentially accuse those that don't like religious buildings/symbols as intolerant.

Not being English the native language of everyone here (I mean myself, for instance), it is difficult to adequately measure one's words. One always trusts that Latin words are preserved but it is not always the case. I find three main entries for intolerant in Merriam-Webster:

not willing to allow or accept something

not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights

medicine : unable to take a certain substance into the body without becoming sick

I don't think that in this case it is a question of aesthetics (like or don't like in the sentence "...essentially accuse those that don't like religious buildings/symbols...") when one doesn't want to see religious/military/nuclear premises in paks. They just don't feel comfortable seeing them, they just want to express that they are somewhat against the things those buildings represent. That is, they don't want to advertise them. I think that it is therefore a question of tolerance (entries 1 and even 3).

Therefore, I wouldn't have used the word accuse in the last sentence, since it has negative connotations. If I don't feel well when drinking milk (lactose), of what I'm guilty? I understand that not willing to allow and forbid are different concepts, aren't they?

Moreover, if I had to tell, religious people tend to be more intolerant to other behaviours/expressions than non-believers and sometimes the latter tend to be more intolerant as a reaction to the behaviour of the former.

In the essential part, I think we agree.

Quote

But to anyone who talks about intolerance: please be careful that you are yourself free from intolerance. And I include myself in that. I try to keep an open mind. But I have also been branded as intolerant (NOT here, but elsewhere) because I stand up to the intolerance of those who try and force things on me![...]edit: After thought, although I don't want to make a full argument,[...]

That's a nice concept: tolerance to intolerance. Are tolerant people tolerant to intolerance of others? As with many self referencing concepts, one has to be careful since paradoxes appear sooner or later. Otherwise, a tolerant man would be someone that don't care about anything! (or a dead person). As I see it, there is no contradiction if I say: I'm tolerant to anything but such, such, such, and intolerance.

Please, Isaac, don't restrain yourself from arguing. Your ideas are very interesting, at least to me.

It depends on each human. I count myself as a atheist, but I like visits of churches, because I go to see art (and work of masters of building) there.

I'm aware that most atheists don't mind religion, just like most religious people don't mind atheists - as long as nobody tries to convert each other.It's an if-sentence, causal logic. If A is true, so is B. If it is true that atheists are offended by religious symbols, it is also true that religious people are offended by the lack of religious symbols. Just to clarify ^^

Actually, another interesting question: If someone did a pak.india, what if he'd include swastikas?

The would have been reverted anyway. But according to your logic, the buddhist should be offend if they are not included (although Hindu followers might be offended by their presence). Even both pak.japan do not have them, despite they being a common mark for temples (or sometimes even for sightseeing spots in general) in maps.

However, it is not the cross itself; why I would not like to have many Marterls in my landscape. It is rather the intolerant (albeit more historic) catholic church which I personally link with Marterl. As said, when you start with controvers topic, well, the will be controvers.

Again: If the other main contributors (like flemmbrav, Alex, ... ) to pak192 are ok with it, then obviously no problems. If not all main contributors feel comfortable with it, one should consider putting it in an addon, like the british trains. Otherwise it may look as highjacking other people's work for one's worldview (even if this is worded way too strong).

Prissi, I don't understand why Hindu would be offended by the precence of swastika, as it is a common symbol in hinduism as well as buddhism and jainism (it is not bound to only one religion)No, buddhist don't have to be offended, please don't twist my words. Buddhists might be offended, just like you as an "western atheist" might be offended by their presence. I'm sure you don't want to put the opinion of an western atheist higher than the opinion of a buddhist.Btw, while pak.japan might not have swastikas, there is a shinto shrine with a prominent torii - which is argueable a religious symbol. You should know it, you painted it yourself

I did not think this discussion would end on a "do what you want" note. Obviously the core pak contributors need to talk about that topic on their own. However, what if you were part of pak192.comic? If you said "No, I'm an atheist, I don't want it in the pak", wouldn't you try to "highjack" the pak for your atheistic worldview? In which way would that be different from saying "I'm Austrian, so I want the common stuff of Austria in the pak"? And I don't mean that as an accusation, I'm genuinly curious what the difference is.

Don't you see religion related discussions never reach a agreement. I don't feel disturbed as a atheist seeing religuous items, I just know they have allways been a source of problems, and any software should stay far from them. Just keep them out of the paks, and publish a addon pak as a complement.

A world devoid of religion is as unrealistic as all those silly vehicle names in pak64, so there's at least precedent there. Reminds me of what I've heard happend to Transport Tycoon when it went Deluxe. Not an improvement in my opinion, and made me glad I had the original.

Ok, I said it is worded too strongly. Since you asked: For me, showing stuff is a different grade of intolerance than not showing stuff. There is a fine line to censoring. But belief is a personal thing, so I want people having as much freedom in their belief without suggesting anything.

Catholics fought wars with protestants. Christian protestants were be offended by a Kruzifix (if the take Luther by his words). Hence a Marterln is something promoting a special branch of belief. Crosses on a church are nowadays more considered part of the building (as the crescent or the orthodox cross). And they are pretty universal, everybody seems to understand this without further explanaition. (Same for the other symbols.)

Nevertheless, you are right, Marterln are part of the alpine landscapes (almost exclusively) same as the japanese tori. (Which as not Bhuuddist but Shinto, albeit even Japanese mixes them.) However, they do not have to be red, and they just symbolize the out area of a shrine, i.e. entering the area where the local god lives (as far as I know). There are however several customs around them (like throwing a stone on them so that is rest on it will bring luck etc. ). Also this is called pak64.Japan or pak128.japan while pak129.comic is not called pak192.austrian ...

Quote

However, what if you were part of pak192.comic? If you said "No, I'm an atheist, I don't want it in the pak", wouldn't you try to "highjack" the pak for your atheistic worldview? In which way would that be different from saying "I'm Austrian, so I want the common stuff of Austria in the pak"? And I don't mean that as an accusation, I'm genuinly curious what the difference is.

Just for the record, I have an Austrian passport, but I grew up in Berlin.

Back to topic: tolerance means compromise. And the compromise need to be found between the people who contributed to the pak set. As with the british trains, which were not considered for inclusion (for whatever reason I forgot, honestly) I would ask to make it either and addon or put is into the rocky climate and give it a much lower probability than the flower patches. Otherwise there would be anyway too many of them to be visually pleasant. Maybe even make it a tree. If included it will need a good translation at least on the english language to not irritate people why there are grave in the landscape.